U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 15, 2011 08:24 PM UTC

Republicans Prepare to Punt Budget Ball to Obama

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Los Angeles Times reports:

A plan by the Senate’s two top leaders to allow President Obama to raise the debt limit without congressional approval is emerging as the most likely strategy to avoid a looming federal default…

…Conservatives, particularly in the House, seem likely to oppose it. But with efforts to deliver a larger deficit-reduction deal still at a stalemate, the new plan – which builds on a proposal put forward earlier in the week by McConnell – could provide a way out of a dead end that has become politically and economically perilous.

Republicans seem content at this point to let President Obama essentially make the decision on the budget/debt ceiling debate. The GOP appears convinced that letting Obama play the adult in the room will somehow make them look better to voters, despite recent polling indicating that most Americans are holding Republicans responsible for the lack of progress thus far. By a more than 2-to-1 margin, Americans also continue to blame former President George Bush — and not Obama — for the nation’s economic woes.

With all of that in mind, could someone explain the logic here?

Under the emerging proposal, Obama would be able to order increases in the debt ceiling on his own, without congressional approval. Congress would vote on legislation to block an increase, but if such a resolution passed, as is likely, Obama would veto it. If the veto were sustained by Congress, the debt limit would be increased.

Republican strategists think that scenario would force Obama to take full political responsibility for the rising national debt, a prospect that White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama could live with.

“The president is willing to take responsibility for leading, and he is willing to do what it takes to compromise to reach something significant, and he is willing to own it, if other people won’t.”

Obviously Republicans are quietly hoping that Obama’s decisions will fail so that they can scream about how nobody listened to them, or something. But it’s hard to point fingers when you publicly removed yourself from the debate. Even if this plan fails and the economy gets worse, Republicans will still be open to attacks that they did nothing to help. After all, it’s really hard to put a spin on a decision to do nothing; right or wrong, at least Obama will be in control of his own message.

Perhaps Republicans just see this as the only option to get out of their own way on the debt ceiling while not angering a Tea Party base that is forever threatening Primary challenges for those deemed insufficiently obstinate. But we don’t see how sitting on their hands will help Republicans with General Election voters, and specifically with Independent voters. We’ve thought for awhile now that Republicans were backing themselves into a corner here; they may finally be surrounded — by each other.

Tweet
Share

Comments

47 thoughts on “Republicans Prepare to Punt Budget Ball to Obama”

    1. But it might just be that Republicans have tied themselves in knots trying to court both the Tea Party and Independent voters. This might be less of a “strategy” than a realization that they don’t know what move to make.

  2. This is only an acceptable solution IF a large number Republicans vote for it. If this is all Dems and just a handful of Republicans, then it’s a bad move for Democrats.  

    There have been too many ‘compromises’ where the Republicans all vote no on deals they previously agreed to and attack Democrats for supporting those deals. Can anyone say TARP?

    2. …and as I pointed out, Sen REID will be deciding what bills get on the floor of the Senate, not the GOP.

      Why would the Senate Dems, who’ve had to put up with all of this petulant shit from the Senate Repubs over treaties, appointments, etc let McConnell’s bill go forward? I suspect they’ll put forward Sen Dorgan’s bill first with the promise they’ll put McConnell’s bill right afterward.

      If asshats like Paul try and filibuster it, then the Republican’t Party will completely own the “obstructionist” tag….

      1. What about the Punter-in-Chief?

        Krauthammer absolutely destroyed him on this.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

        For some reason, I’m unable at the moment to quote from the story – Soapblox keeps kicking me out when I cut and paste, so forgive me for paraphrasing Krauthammer’s piece:

        ****  begin paraphrase ****

        Obama ignored his own deficit commision in December.

        In February he presented a budget that increases debt by $10 trillion over the next decade.

        In April he asked for an increase and refused any deficit reduction.

        He has yet to publicly propose a single structural change to an entitlement.

        He will only agree to a long-term deal, defined as one that takes us through the end of his only term, in 2012, which is ridiculous, purely political, and total bullshit.

        ******* end paraphrase *****

        Again, sorry to paraphrase, I’m guessing there’s some HTML hidden in the cut and paste somewhere, but give the ed a read and let me know what you think.

          1. Conservatives are faking still believing in trickle down.  They know it’s a crock. But when you come right out and say “We really just want you clowns to provide the handful of elite at the top with cheap labor and we want the elite to pay as close to nothing in taxes as possible so they can continue to widen the gap between themselves and you clowns”, you don’t get the votes.  They still need those.  Besides blood, sweat and tears, that’s all they want from the little people. Abortion! Gays! Guns! Socialism! We’ll take our jobs and go home! Boo!  That’s the ticket  

            1. will increase automatically with prosperity, which is gained in part by lowering tax rates to a reasonable level.

              A progressive flat tax coupled with the elimination would, IMO be the best thing we could do.  Our current system is a joke.  THere are tax accountants with 30 years experience that will tell you the code is too complicated for them.

              1. …where’s the 10 bazillion jobs it was supposed to create? The balanced budget Dubya promised?

                I do agree about the tax code, though….

              2. Prosperity and tax revenues have quite demonstrably and persistently not increased “automatically” (or otherwise) as a result of already historically low tax rates, in spite of ten long years given for that formula to work. Obama wasn’t in office for two years before the right started trying to cast all blame his way but you are still claiming the efficacy of a formula that has abjectly failed a ten year trial. There’s a word for that. Denial, as they say, ain’t just a river in Egypt.

                While I  believe you are  a well intentioned person in denial, I believe no such thing about the GOP leadership. They couldn’t care less about general prosperity and would rather starve government programs that contribute middle class prosperity than increase revenue.  The only prosperity they care about is the kind concentrated in a very tiny class at the top.  

                What is my basis for that claim?  I doubt it’s a coincidence that during the very same ten years that have seen the failure of your naively held theory, wealth has been transferred to and become concentrated in a fraction of a percentile at the top at an increasingly dizzying pace. The middle class?  By any objective measure it has  lost ground or, at best, stagnated.

                The real world facts just don’t support your favored theory. That generally means it’s time for another theory, elbee.

              3. Then why hasn’t it ever worked anywhere with a middle class?

                It works when there are rich and poor and no in between.

                Because the poor stay poor- the rich get richer and call it prosperity.

                But Laffer curve has never worked in an economy with a middle class. And it’s never created one.

                Ya gotsta read Adam Smith.

                Yes, he advocated for a free market, but but Wealth of Nations was way more about reigning in corporate exploiters than shutting down gov’t.  All the warnings were about corporations shutting down competition and making prices opaque.   All the advocacy was for prices being transparent so the market could function and companies being required to compete.

                It was good enough for President T. Roosevelt – it’s good enough for me.  

                But, T. Roosevelt, just like R, Reagan, would have to run as a D if he were running today.

                “progressive flat tax”

                Oxymoron.  How would that work?

        3. First off, I give a shit about some moonbat columnist living in the Right-Wing-O-Verse. His fulltime job is to say “Democrats SUCK” so why would I give him a second of my time?

          Second off, CONGRESS is responsible for the budget. It’s in that Constitution-thingie. Funny thing, when this started, the Repubs told the President to stay out of it…but when Cantor got his Teabagger panties in a wad and walked out of talks, Repubs then hooted and screamed that he needed to be LEADING the talks.

          Now the game of deficit talk poker is over and he’s walked away from the table with Boehner’s watch, wallet and pants, every paid mouthpiece of the GOP is shrieking and hooting about how much the President sucks.

          Too bad.

          If you want to blame anybody, blame your Party for not calling Obama’s bluff when he offered to capitulate on entitlements.  If the Repubs had said yes, Obama would be the one backed in a corner to finish negotiating, not the GOP.

          The delicious irony in all this is that Repubs, having gamed the arcane rules of the Senate for the better part of year to block god damn near everything, is now going have those same rules bite them in the ass over what could have been their signature issue in 2012.

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        4. Obama ignored his own deficit commision in December.

          You falsely imply he backtracked. The reality is that he convened a bipartisan commission to come up with their own novel plan. Saying he “ignored his own commission” is a bullshit way to say he disagreed with the new plan a newly created bipartisan group created.

          I get your deep desire to imply something sinister about something completely understandable, but this is a great example of how you’ve long since jumped the shark from “Pols’ favorite reasonable Repub” into Libertad-land.

              1. He took a critical look at it and realized that if he followed their recommendations that he wouldn’t be able to continue to spend someone else’s money with abandon anymore.

                1. That’s funny.

                  He took a critical look at it and realized that if he followed their recommendations that he wouldn’t be able to continue to spend someone else’s money with abandon anymore.

                  Sometimes I think it’s too bad that Obama doesn’t have a waxed mustache and wear a black cape. You guys couldn’t stereotype him more perfectly if he did.

            2. Do you buy every pair of shoes you try on? But of course I forgot.  You are a true believer in the GOP talking points. So, on the basis of nothing, their motives always good.  Obama’s always bad.  

                1. agree with all it’s findings?  That’s just silly and you know it.  It’s like deciding to hang someone but only after you stage a nice little trial for form’s sake.

            3. Didn’t the commission recommend a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases? The spending cuts would be unpopular among many Democratic voters, but the President has shown a willingness to negotiate on such cuts. The same cannot be said about the GOPs position on tax increases. So with the GOP’s clear refusal to even discuss tax increases, why would the President risk his own political capital and push for the commission recommendations when the GOP would just vote against them?  

              1. They couldn’t come to an agreement.

                The two chairs put out their own report, but it wasn’t “the commission’s” report.

                Same problem: The Republicans want to cut social security and medicare to give tax breaks to the wealthy. The democrats want to protect the middle class.

                The real problem is creating more jobs and boost GDP growth. We are in a deep recession, so for those two things to happen, we need more deficit spending and investment in infrastructure and job support.

                It’s called basic economics.

                1. Growing our way out of this recession is the best solution that no one is talking about, least of all Republicans.

                  If you want a revenue-neutral government solution, then take the billions and billions of tax subsidies we give to Oil & Gas and Industrial Farmers, and give it to schools, universities and research institutions to produce the next generation of skilled workers and scientific breakthroughs to power the investments private companies normally make, instead of just sitting on their cash or spending it on foreign workers and factories overseas.

                  I’m all for free trade and global investments for an efficient global economy.  But we have been eating our seed corn for far too long.  Time to invest in ourselves for our (and the world’s) continued prosperity.

                    1. Thanks, glad we (sort of) agree for once 😉

                      But a few billion here and there, while an excellent long term investment (and course correction in wasteful government spending), wouldn’t have much immediate effect on 2008’s Great Recession.

                      No Laffer Curve or Austrian School of thought will work either.  Good ol’ Keynes was, and still is, right.  For fast, fast relief, spending is the best solution.  

                      If consumers or private industry can’t or won’t, then the government has to be the one to prime the pump, and keep it flowing until it can sustain itself.

                    2. The stimulus bill we got was a compromise bill that had enough of what a majority wanted to pass. It didn’t have everything Obama wanted. It didn’t have everything anyone wanted. If you want to hold Obama responsible, be my guest.

  4. All the charges and counter charges of who or which party is repsonsible for the deficit and the naitonal debt are irrelevant. We have been running this country on the national credit card for nearly fifty years (ever since the Vietnam War and the Great Society) and it doesn’t matter who ran up the balance (All of them did). We are where we are and we can’t get out of this by budget cuts alone. We have a moral responsibility to begin paying off the credit card because we ran up the bill and we voted for the politicians who did it. It’s our responsibility. Rep. Cantor appears to have this strange idea that somehow the government is a foreign object that is responsible for all of the irresponsilbe fiscal and budget decisions made over the past fifty years. In my humble opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. We the people elected the politicians who ran up the defeicits and the national debt. It was our responsibility to stop them and we didn’t do that so we are just as responsible as they are. The government is us. It is time to take that responsibility demand that our elected leaders enter into a grand compromise and get the country back on a sound financial footing. We owe it to ourselves and our children.

    TheSenate leadership should be chastised for even suggesting that the debt ceiling be left to the President without a corresponding deal on debt and deficit reduction. If this passes, Winston Churchill’s words at the time of Muncih will ring true for both parties but for different reasons:

    You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.

    For the Republicans, if they go along with this the Tea Party will make war on them for utterly failing to deal with the long term deficits and debt issues. For Sen. Reid and the Democrats it will signal the American voters they simply won’t deal with those two issues in a responsible manner. It will also lower the confidence level of the American people and that will translate into a new economic slump because of the uncertainty it will cause.

    If this passes what Churchill said in Parliment on October 5, 1939 will be true today:

     

    We have suatained a total and unmitigated defeat.

    And he went on to say:

    This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial (I would substitue fiscal discipline in our situation) vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.

    Unless we, the voters, are willing to demand, as we should, that the House and Senate along with the White House craft a compromise, the government will again look weak and ineffective. It is up to us, the voters, to push our elected officials to compromise.

    As for Cantor and the other fanatics he seems to represent, Winston Churchill summed them up to:

    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

    Cantor and his ilk should be shoved aside by the electorate so those who have the will and tools can finish the job.

    2. We have a big problem that we will either address, in a way that fairly spreads the pain, or we continue this countries decline into 2nd world status. All empires must end someday, but I’d prefer to see the length of ours be more like the Ottoman Empire, not a flash in the pan.

    3. Look at the tax structure the last time our counry faced an existential crisis on the level of today’s economic crisis.  We taxed everyone appropriately, we invested in those things necessary to face the threat and the crisis, and achieved 50 years of unprecedented economic prosperity as a bonus.

      Imagine what we could do today if we taxed everyone (remember, corporations are people too — thanks, SCOTUS) appropriately today and instead of spending the proceeds on bombs and munitions that get scattered around four or five continents, we invested those monies in tangible infrastructure:  roads, and bridges, and a smart-gird, and high-speed internet access, and education, and transportation, and alternative energy sources, etc., etc., — all of the things that American business could use to produce and transport new and improved products and jobs.

      According to trickle-down theory (let’s consider it a contract) we give the rich tax cuts, and that money gets invested to produce jobs for our citizens.

      Well, the lazy rich haven’t lived up to their employment contract — they haven’t done their part.  And, like the parable where the master takes back his money (“talents”) from the lazy servant who buried his capital, instead of investing as he should have — we should now take those monies from the lazy rich who have failed in their duties to this country, and give those monies back to middle- and working-classes (small businesses) who have demonstrated that they can, and will, produce jobs for Americans.

      I’ve got a proposal: roll back all of the Bush tax cuts, and tax capital gains at the same level as income.  What’s that, Mr. Rich?  You really want your precious, precious tax breaks?  Here’s the deal — I’ll give you a personal (corporate) income tax credit equal to two-thirds of the income taxes paid by every worker in every new, full-time job (with health care benefits) that you add to our economy.  Create us some jobs and you can pay lower taxes.  Get to work, slugs!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

172 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!